Today at OpinionJournal.com, Dr. Sowell has the featured article entitled, “Crippled by Their Culture“. He writes that “race doesn’t hold back America’s black rednecks. Nor does racism.” While this is certainly a thought provoking essay which I would in no way disparage, I disagree with the term “redneck” as Dr. Sowell has used it. Although today the word has the meaning that was originally used by Yankee soldiers to describe all rural Southerners, the immigrant “Rednecks” who first came to America were the Scots-Irish who settled in the Appalachians and who did not espouse slavery, nor had much contact with Southern blacks. In addition, they were usually educated and literate. The immigrant white indentured servants, convicts and other miscreants of the Tidewater area of the South, were in fact those whites who had the most contact and influence on the African immigrants. Early court records document the many instances of white women being punished for giving birth to mulatto children. It seems that these are the people of whom Dr. Sowell is speaking, and they were never considered “rednecks” at the time of their arrival on America’s shores.

For most of the history of this country, differences between the black and the white population–whether in income, IQ, crime rates, or whatever–have been attributed to either race or racism. For much of the first half of the 20th century, these differences were attributed to race–that is, to an assumption that blacks just did not have it in their genes to do as well as white people. The tide began to turn in the second half of the 20th century, when the assumption developed that black-white differences were due to racism on the part of whites.

Three decades of my own research lead me to believe that neither of those explanations will stand up under scrutiny of the facts. As one small example, a study published last year indicated that most of the black alumni of Harvard were from either the West Indies or Africa, or were the children of West Indian or African immigrants. These people are the same race as American blacks, who greatly outnumber either or both.

If this disparity is not due to race, it is equally hard to explain by racism. To a racist, one black is pretty much the same as another. But, even if a racist somehow let his racism stop at the water’s edge, how could he tell which student was the son or daughter of someone born in the West Indies or in Africa, especially since their American-born offspring probably do not even have a foreign accent?

of Pelosia and Delay — According to MSNBC and the Washington Post there has been a rush to refile travel records by lawmakers in Congress. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat’s leader actually apologized for her illegalities, claiming she was unaware of the rules. The Republican whip, Tom Delay, has said the same thing, but in his case it does not matter. There are two sets of ethics rules, depending on which party you belong to.

“I apologize” — In another case, an aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had not reported a 2004 trip to South Korea until a Washington Post reporter asked her office about it. Eddie Charmaine Manansala, Pelosi’s special assistant on East Asian affairs, filed a disclosure form for the $9,087 trip a few hours after the newspaper’s inquiry and sent a note to the ethics committee saying, “I did not know I was supposed to file these forms and I apologize for its lateness.”

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) even asked the ethics committee to investigate him after a reporter for the newspaper Roll Call pointed out that a travel disclosure form from 2001 listed the lobbying firm Rooney Group International as paying for a $1,782 trip to Boston, which would be a violation of House rules.

Abercrombie’s aides said they have since determined that the lobbying firm’s expenses were reimbursed by the nonprofit group that Abercrombie addressed on the trip, the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. House rules state that the prohibition against lobbyists paying for members’ travel applies “even where the lobbyist . . . will later be reimbursed for those expenses by a non-lobbyist client.”

This is cool! Fellow Texans riding on Air Force One at taxpayer expense. What will they say now? Blogs for Bush is reporting , “Bush To Give DeLay Ride on Air Force One: The AP reports that President Bush, in a show of support for Tom DeLay, will give him a ride from Texas to Washington tomorrow.”

“Even if I see Runar while he has major police protection I will shoot him to death,” a radical Islamist told Swedish newspaper Expressen. Persons connected to the Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam claim to have received a fatwa, a decree from a Muslim religious leader, to kill Sögaard.

Sögaard said he fears for his life and understands that he has angered the wrong people.

Professor Jasper Rine who lectures at UC Berkeley had his laptop stolen by a thief who was after exam data. Unfortunately, Professor Rine had other much more important data on his laptop. If you ever have occasion during your lifetime to want to frighten the beejeebies out of someone, you may want to save this transcript of the Rine speech which Blast Radius has entitled “A World of Pain“.

To listen to an MP3 of Professor Rine’s spine chilling discourse, here it is via Sean Graham who says: “I made a very lo-fi mp3 of the audio from the ‘Stolen Laptop Lecture‘.

The spinmeisters of the Deomocrat party have been trying to convince “We the People” that the right to filibuster is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It is not. You may verify that it is not by reading the historic document for yourself. It is amazingly simple and straight forward. Click on the link, U.S. Constitution, and go up to ‘Edit‘ on your tool bar and using the pull down menu, click on ‘Find’ and type in ‘Filibuster‘, and see if it is there. It isn’t.

Pat Cleary says “That’s because it’s a Senate rule, part of the arcana that makes up the ways of the US Senate. And, they’ve changed the rule throughout history. They may be fixin’ to change it again.”

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., April 19 – The world may little note nor long remember what George W. Bush said on Tuesday at the dedication of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum. But it is not every day that the 43rd president of the United States encounters the ghostly, lifelike renditions of the 16th, managing a war from the bedrooms that the Bush family now occupies.

“In a small way, I can relate to the rail-splitter from out West because he had a way of speaking that was not always appreciated by the newspapers back East,” Mr. Bush said to laughter before a crowd of thousands who jammed into the downtown of the Illinois capital. “A New York Times story on his first inaugural address reported that Mr. Lincoln was lucky ‘it was not the constitution of the English language and the laws of English grammar that he was called upon to support.’ ”

With a pause, Mr. Bush added, “I think that fellow is still writing for The Times.”

DAVID ROSSIE in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin made a most interesting commentary comparing different phrases from the various speeches of the two wartime presidents. Rossie’s piece is entitled Presidential rhetoric, then and now. Here I have included the examples of “Bush-Speak”. If you want to see the comparison between the two presidents, Lincoln and Bush, go to the Rossie Link.

During a visit last week to the Lincoln Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill., our current president drew a comparison between his speaking style and that of Mr. Lincoln, one that should be obvious to the impartial observer, but one that has, nonetheless, been ignored by the jackals of the liberal media. Herewith, in their own words, proof of that linguistic bond:

“I had the opportunity to go out to Goree Island and talk about what slavery meant to America. It’s very interesting when you think about it. The slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America.” G.W. Bush. July 8, 2003.

“I don’t like the idea of having an undocumented economy in the greatest country in the face of the earth.” G.W. Bush. Jan 9, 2004.

“One of the great things about this country is a lot of people pray.” G.W. Bush, April 13, 2003.

“People can read everything they want into it when they hear ‘faith-based initiative.’ That all of a sudden opens everybody’s imagination in the world to vast possibilities, some of which exist and some which don’t.” G. W. Bush, speaking in Washington, July 16, 2003.

“The federal government and the state government must not fear programs who change lives, but must welcome those faith-based programs for the embetterment of mankind.” G. W. Bush, Stockton, Calif., Aug. 23, 2002.

“I wanna remind you all that I — in order — what in order to fight and win the war it requires a expenditure of money that is commiserate with keeping a promise to our troops to make sure that they’re well-paid, well-trained, well-equipped.” G.W. Bush, Dec. 15, 2003.

“The true strength of America is the fact that we’ve got millions of fellow citizens who are willing to love a neighbor just like they would like to be loved themselves.” G.W. Bush, June 19, 2003.

I would say that our president is in good company if he is being compared to Abraham Lincoln. However, that is definitely not the reaction over at the Smirky Wimp where Rossie’s article was posted under Commander-In-Thief.

Demonizing political leaders as Nazis seems to be the latest weapon the loony left has taken from its arsenal. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have seemed to be the favored targets, yet amazingly, the new Pope Benedict is now the recipient. I have not found an example from a reputable segment of the media, such as newspapers, television shows, etcetera, which have actually written “The Pope is a Nazi”, but instead the word “Nazi” is typically found in a headline and upon further reading, one learns only of Joseph Ratzinger’s encounters with the movement during his youth in Germany. Whatever group is the instigator of this slime job, whether leftists, liberals, Democrats, Jews, Israelis or just plain Christophobes, it is a grave error in judgment. Each day there are fewer and fewer survivors from the terrible times when the real Nazis terrorized the western world. Fewer and fewer people will be alive to testify to the real horror of the Third Reich. To the young people of today, World War II is ancient history; almost as far back as the Civil War was, when I was growing up. Describing such a saintly man as Pope Benedict XVI as a Nazi, teaches a false history lesson to those youngsters. How bad could the Nazis have really been, when we all know that Pope Benedict has not harmed a living soul in his entire life? If Leftists teach that Nazis were as evil as George Bush, just how evil will the next generation believe that the Nazis really were?

For the record, Joseph Ratzinger , as far as I have discovered, is linked to the Nazi Party only by being a German subject in Germany at the time of the Third Reich, being required, under threat, to join a Hitler Youth Group, and being conscripted, twice I believe, into the German army. He was part of the very young men who were used essentially as canon fodder. The young Ratzinger deserted the Army and returned to his home village, knowing that the penalty for his crime was death. Fortunately, he was captured by the Americans, and when the war was over, he returned to the seminary. That is the extent of the Pope’s connection to Nazism, and for that he is being unjustly labeled as a Nazi.

I have not been to Daily Kos in a while, but I went earlier this afternoon and it seems like every other diary on the site refers to Pope Benedict XVI as a Nazi. In fact, there is this diary that actually demands that liberals call him the Nazi Pope. If you think I am cherry picking off of Daily Kos, you can find other Pope Benedict XVI=Nazi diaries here, here, and here. And that does not even include the numerous references to Pope Benedict XVI as the Nazi pope in comments of other diaries.

There’s heated debate about whether it’s appropriate to call Ratzinger the Nazi Pope. It is not clear he’s still influenced by the Nazi teaching during his childhood, however, it is clear he was in the Nazi Youth Camp and he is notoriously ultraconversative.

I’m pretty tired of hearing people say we should not question his past, and he was just a child etc. Yes, he was a child, but we’re talking about the spiritual leader of Catholics. What is wrong to hold him to high standard? Why can’t they choose another cardinal with better image? If he didn’t have the courage to resist joining Nazi Youth Camp, probably we should not expect him to be the leader as well.

I will call him Nazi Pope, plain and simple, for his past, more importantly, for his current facist doctrine.”

2005 to date, by Kerfuffles.
Images and writings of others are subject to copyright by the individual owners and are displayed here for educational or news purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine of the Copyright Law of the United States of America, (title 17, U. S. Code).